Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by the Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Founded in 1999.

Why so verbose, Mr. Smith? Does the evidence make you feel that uncomfortable?

Scott Smith wrote:Halder's signature is on the order; this is the kind of bullshit bellicose military rhetoric that is typical of the military.

Looks like Smith hasn’t even bothered to read the quotations.

One is an entry Halder made into his personal diary.

Another is an order by Halder to the troops of Army Group North, i.e. a document containing compulsory instructions on how the troops were to proceed.

The third is a private letter that General Quarter Master Eduard Wagner wrote to his wife, wherein he shared his thoughts with the person presumably most close to him. Elisabeth Wagner must have been aware of the damning nature of such confidences, for she took care to omit them when after the war she published her late husband’s biography with the title Der Generalquartiesmeister.

And there's more to follow.

Bullshit bellicose military rhetoric, Mr. Smith?

Bellicose apologetic bullshit is what I would call your feeble objections.

Scott Smith wrote:Big deal. Change the names and we could be talking about the Germans or the Japs instead of the Russians.

Yeah, sure. Give us a document wherein those evil Allies put to paper their intentions to let the population of an entire German or Japanese city perish rather than accept that city’s capitulation if it were offered. I’m definitely interested.

Scott Smith wrote:Genocide plans? Lots of smoke, not much fire. War sucks.

What sucks here should be obvious to a number of readers.

War is hell, but a policy to let the population of an entire city perish even if its government is prepared to throw the towel and hand the city over doesn’t have much to do with war anymore, does it?

Scott Smith wrote:The political theorist Machiavelli lived in the 15th-16th century Italian Renaissance. "Ancient" means before the Middle Ages, the ancient world and Rome. I suggest some historical study on the historical realities of Siege Warfare.

Really ?When I mentioned Machiavelli I didn't want to connect his name
to the"Siege Warfare". I meant your tactics of pretending not to
notice the obvious points (like in the case of the "euthanasia" discussion
in the thread "soap")and picking on the facts advantageous to your ideological agenda.
This is very reminicsent of the Machiavelli tricks.

Scott Smith wrote:The political theorist Machiavelli lived in the 15th-16th century Italian Renaissance. "Ancient" means before the Middle Ages, the ancient world and Rome. I suggest some historical study on the historical realities of Siege Warfare.

Really ?When I mentioned Machiavelli I didn't want to connect his nameto the"Siege Warfare". I meant your tactics of pretending not to notice the obvious points (like in the case of the "euthanasia" discussionin the thread "soap")and picking on the facts advantageous to your ideological agenda.This is very reminicsent of the Machiavelli tricks.

Okay, I'll regard that as a compliment since I admire Machiavelli. But I thought you meant "Machiavellian" in the sense of Hitler refusing to feed the Leningraders who refused to surrender the city; and Stalin deliberately using Russian refugees to impede the German advance, or in this case not allowing the citizens of Leningrad to evacuate and ordering them to resist and starve in a long siege with little resupply. Hitler ordered the Berliners to resist that siege, but in the event he did not order them to starve since the battle did not last long. Of course, it is wrong if Hitler orders the citizens of Berlin to resist but heroic if Stalin orders the citizens of Leningrad to resist.

Anyway, atkif, I won't belabor the point that the Leningrad Genocide-allegation is THIN, with a capital T--and that rhymes with B (for bogus).

Best Regards,
Scott

Last edited by Scott Smith on 09 Sep 2002 09:28, edited 1 time in total.

Scott Smith wrote:Anyway, atkif, I won't belabor the point that the Leningrad Genocide-allegation is THIN, with a capital T--and that rhymes with B (for bogus).

If you don't consider it genocidal to butcher the civilian population of a city or let it starve beyond the extent required to bring about the capitulation of that city, Smith is right.

Otherwise, he's just shooting the bull as would be expected of a true Nazi apologist, because the documentary evidence clearly shows that the Wehrmacht was prepared to let the population of Leningrad perish far beyond the extent required to achieve its military objectives.

1.) Occupy the city, i.e. proceed as we have in regard to other Russian big cities:

To be rejected because we would then be responsible for the feeding.

2.) Seal off city tightly, if possible with an electrified fence guarded by machine guns.

Disadvantages: Of about 2 million people the weak will starve to death within a foreseeable time, whereas the strong will secure all food supplies and stay alive. The danger of epidemics that carry over to our front. It is also questionable whether our soldiers can be burdened with having to shoot on women and children trying to break out.

3.) Take out women, children and elder men through gates in the encirclement ring, let the rest starve to death:

a) Removal across the Volchov behind the enemy front theoretically a good solution, but can hardly be carried out in practice. Who is to keep hundreds of thousands together and drive them on? Where is the Russian front in this case?

b) If we do without a march behind the Russian front, those let out will spread across the land.

At any rate there remains the disadvantage that the starving remaining population of Leningrad constitutes a source of epidemics and that the strongest still remain in the city for a long time.

4.) After advance of the Fins and concluded sealing off of the city, we go back behind the Neva and leave the area to the north of this section to the Fins.

The Fins have unofficially declared, that they would like to have the Neva as their country’s border, but that Leningrad must go. Good as a political solution. The question of the population is not to be solved by the Fins, however. This we have to do.

Result and suggestion:

There is no satisfactory solution. Army Group North must, however, receive an order that can actually be carried out when the time comes.

The following is suggested:

a) We determine before the world that Stalin is defending Leningrad as a fortress. We are thus forced to treat the city with its entire population as a military objective. We nevertheless do more: We allow the humanitarian Roosevelt to feed the inhabitants not becoming prisoners of war after a capitulation of Leningrad under the supervision of the Red Cross or to transport them to his continent and guarantee free escort for this shipping movement (the offer can of course not be accepted, it is to be seen merely under propaganda aspects).

b) We seal off Leningrad hermetically for the time being and crush the city, as far as possible, with artillery and air power (only weak aerial forces available at the time!).

c) As soon as the city is ripe through terror and beginning hunger, a few gates are opened and the defenseless are let out. Insofar as possible they will be pushed of to inner Russia, the rest will necessarily spread across the land.

d) The rest of the "fortress defenders" will be left to themselves over the winter. In spring we then enter the city (if the Fins do it before us we do not object), lead those still alive to inner Russia or into captivity, wipe Leningrad from the face of the earth through demolitions and then hand over the area north of the Neva to the Fins.

5. Letter of the Navy Liaison Officer at Army Group North of 22.9.1941 (Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, RM 7/1014, Bl. 39-41)

I’m writing to you because of the fate of Leningrad, which is now approaching decision. When I held a lecture to the Grand Admiral in Reval on the 19th, he obviously did not know that it is not intended to enter the city. During the conquest of Warsaw we had bad experiences with this. The further procedure the Führer reserved to himself personally when he visited the Army Group about 8 weeks ago. From several hints given to me by the local head of general staff I got the impression that the decision has by now been taken in about the following sense: Leningrad is the birthplace of Bolshevism. As long as it is in German hands it will have the same role that Constantinople used to have for the Czars’ Russia. Its re-conquest will be point no. 1 on the program of Bolshevism, which the Führer wants to displace into Asia. The city must thus disappear from the face of the earth, like Cartage in its time. Also for reasons of territorial policy this is necessary, because the Neva is to become the new frontier between Finland and the Eastern Territories. Besides it is clear than we cannot feed the inhabitants, which are currently estimated at about 5 million. The city is presumably to be destroyed by artillery, bombs, fire, hunger and cold, without a single German soldier stepping into it. I personally doubt that this will be possible, given the incredible toughness of the Russian. In my opinion 4 to 5 million people cannot be killed off that easily. I saw this with my own eyes in Kovno, where the Latvians shot 6 000 Jews, among them women and children. Even a people as rude as the Latvians could no longer bear the sight of this murder in the end. The whole action then ran out of steam. How much more difficult will this be with a city of millions. Besides this would in my opinion lead to a storm of indignation in the whole world, which we politically cannot afford. I address these questions because they are of great importance in terms of naval policies. As a port Leningrad is without doubt a makeshift solution that Peter the Great had to choose. For the future Eastern Territories the ice-free harbor of Reval or Baltischport will be the gateway to the sea. Maybe a port further to the East, e.g. Ust-Luga or Oranienbaum, is to be considered additionally as a summer port. If we don’t set foot in Leningrad, our navy is kept from putting the threws to function. The question is whether we can afford this in view of the final fight against England and the U.S.A. still in front of us. After all Leningrad can also disappear at a later stage, when we have won the war at sea. I imagine the following solution: We declare that due to the blockade by England we are not in conditions to additionally feed the population of this giant city. This especially in a land the food basis of which is so deteriorated due to Bolshevik mismanagement. We allow the women, children and old men to leave at will. England and the U.S.A. may send ships to taken them to another part of the world at their choice. The men able to fight and to work will be taken into captivity. If England / U.S.A. refuse this proposal, they bear the responsibility for the demise of these people before world opinion. If they accept, we are rid of the problem and they have to expend additional freight room. After the capitulation we immediately start operating the threws and some supply installations with prisoners of war and without danger from the air build the fleet that we need for the final fight. In the meantime the evacuation and deconstruction of the city may commence. Once the war has been victoriously concluded, what still remains of the city will disappear. The threws will be taken to Reval or Baltisch Port. I have the impression that in the closest circle around the Führer the decision how to proceed against the city has been taken about 14 days ago but the most varied circles are not informed thereof for certain reasons. I inform you hereof directly due to the urgency of the matter. Maybe my concern is unnecessary and the Naval Command is accurately informed. At any rate I considered it my duty to inform my navy superiors about the impressions gained here. I would be grateful if the whole matter could accordingly be treated confidentially. As the tactical proceeding against the Russian fleet, Kronstadt and Leningrad depends to a great extent on the final intentions, I would be very grateful for a brief notice. This is necessary because only thus I will be able to provide accurate counsel in the matter to my supreme commander, who has much understanding for the navy and the overall conduct of the war. If the decision is taken against the navy, many constraints can be eliminated, like for instance the sparing of the thews and port installations. This would make the anyway very bloody fighting easier. Neither would Kronstadt have to be taken in this case.

Subject: Future of the City of PetersburgII. The Führer is determined to remove the city of Petersburg from the face of the earth. After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban area. Finland has likewise manifested no interest in the maintenance of the city immediately at its new border.III. It is intended to encircle the city and level it to the ground by means of artillery bombardment using every caliber of weapon, and continual air bombardment.IV. Requests for surrender resulting from the city’s encirclement will be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, there can be no interest on our part in maintaining even a part of this large urban population. If necessary forcible removal to the eastern Russian area is to be carried out.

I read with interest bits and pieces of this topic. We must remember that when the seige of Leningrad was over from that date till 1949 Stalin made it one of his main priorities to arrest the commanders who lead the seige and provided hope and inspiration for the civilians there.
Once arrested of course they were tortured to death, even their families were tracked down, some imprisoned, some executed. The reason for these thousands of deaths?, because people looked up more to them than Stalin!. Now if he is capable of doing this to his own people, who acted and defended Leningrad for him why does anybody doubt that Berlin would have been totally desimated, indeed most of germany probably if they were allowed to.
As a old veteran say to me once when I met him " I fought in berlin, the day the russians came, it was a day of hell on earth, it was the day Germany died. Chris.

Lumpy Custard wrote: Now if he is capable of doing this to his own people, who acted and defended Leningrad for him why does anybody doubt that Berlin would have been totally desimated, indeed most of germany probably if they were allowed to.As a old veteran say to me once when I met him " I fought in berlin, the day the russians came, it was a day of hell on earth, it was the day Germany died.

I agree with you that Stalin was a moral monster .No doubts.
However I am not quite sure about your remark "...if they were allowed to".If they were allowed to by whom ?Remember Berlin was taken by
Russians not by Americans or Brits. The population of Berlin was not
"totally desimated" despite the absolute Russian military control.
There were no plans to annihilate Berlin as opposite to what the Germans
had in store for Moscow and Leningrad.
Yes I am sure that it was "hell on earth ".My father once told me the same - he was fighting on the Russian (Soviet) side.
But I don't think that Germany died then.Germany lives and now one of the most prosperous countries.
It is the Nazi Germany which died.

This is VERY Compelling information Roberto. You are to be congratulated for stripping away the veneer of rhetoric
that appears when discussing the Seige of Leningrad. I think
you have revealed it for what it actually was, part of Hitler's
genocidal plans for Russia. That these plans were essentially
straight forward and well-understood by the men who would
implement them is a terrible truth that shouldn't be ignored.
Very Best Regards, David

atkif wrote:Petersburg is considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.So much for the "civilized" Nazis taking pride in the German culture...

Dresden, Königsberg, Danzig, Hamburg, were also among the most beautiful cities in Europe, but nobody cared for it. Neither then(when it was understandable, being war), nor today, when the public ears are deaf to whatever said about.

michael mills wrote:Accordingly, the death of almost one million civilians in Leningrad cannot be attributed solely to a German plan; it was also, even mainly, the result of the willingness of the Soviet Government to sacrifice millions of its own people in order to achieve its ends. If the civilian population had been evacuated in time, then there would have been no mass starvation, no matter how much the German Army bombarded the city

atkif wrote:Very serious accusation.Do you think that "the Soviet Government" was able to foresee how long the siege would last ? Do you think that "the Soviet Government" would benefit from the "sacrifice"of "millions of its own people"? What ends "the Soviet Government" was trying to achieve by such a sacrifice? Looks like some sort of a conspiracy theory.

I wrote:Why did the Party Secretary Of Leningrad, Andrei A. Zhdanov, refuse to capitulate or evacuate the city

atkif wrote:Just because the Soviet people didn't want to surrender.Just because they somehow didn't like the idea of the Germans ruling them.It is probably ve-e-e-r-y difficult to comprehend.

Obviously even for the narrower minds, the four quotes above are not part of a logical string, because between #2 and #4 there is a contradiction.

Which is even stranger considering the two quotes are from the same author.

A case of split personality?

~Ovidius

PS this is not Off-Topic. It's a matter about the Soviets' intention to evacuate cities, this including, but not limited to the unused possibility to evacuate Sankt Petersburg(then known as Leningrad)

Dear Ovidius
This is very sad that you see some sort of a contradiction where there is none.There is no contradiction between these two quotations whatsoever.
The first quotation (#2 by your count ) are just sarcastic questions.
You see Ovidius - sarcasm can be expressed not only by the smiles on the green faces (as you are accustomed to express it).Sarcasm can be a lot more subtle.
It is quite a pity that you were not able to get it.
Probably your passionate devotion to Nazism blinded you somewhat.
Your attempt to insult me with your "split personality" remark is pathetic.
Look at yourself - your case is just plain idiocy.